^I agree with you, Alpin. The world politics right now is dominated by the U.S. and because of that, the alliance is a pseudo one because there is no equality among the nations that cooperate under its umbrella.

I am not sure what either of you are talking about here. If it isn't too much trouble, could either one of you expand on the thought a bit further? Thanks.

After WW2, U.S.S.R. and the U.S. emerged as the superpower, and there were only two major alliances in the world, which are either those that support communist ideology or the democracy under the banner of the Americans, and after the dissolution of Soviet Union, the U.S. remains being the hegemony, thus, the alliances under its banner can't hardly be compared to the likes of the alliance of the entente against the central powers wherein the nations which are members of them were almost equal in terms of economic and military power. As of the moment any so called alliance under the leadership of the U.S. actually means the reliance of them over the American firepower.

After WW2, U.S.S.R. and the U.S. emerged as the superpower, and there were only two major alliances in the world, which are either those that support communist ideology or the democracy under the banner of the Americans, and after the dissolution of Soviet Union, the U.S. remains being the hegemony, thus, the alliances under its banner can't hardly be compared to the likes of the alliance of the entente against the central powers wherein the nations which are members of them were almost equal in terms of economic and military power. As of the moment any so called alliance under the leadership of the U.S. actually means the reliance of them over the American firepower.

Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?

Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?

Modern instances of small states being dependant on the US must surely include Israel and the new regime in Iraq, but I think "merely using" is misrepresenting the situation somewhat.
It has to be a mutually beneficial relationship ... powerful countries just don't support, fund, and arm weaker ones unless they have some vested interest or potentially profit from it in some way.

Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicknero

Modern instances of small states being dependant on the US must surely include Israel and the new regime in Iraq, but I think "merely using" is misrepresenting the situation somewhat.
It has to be a mutually beneficial relationship ... powerful countries just don't support, fund, and arm weaker ones unless they have some vested interest or potentially profit from it in some way.

I think, Sicknero, aptly answered it.

However, my point is as of the moment, no one shall win against the U.S. Hence, any nation, government or entity, that shall be on its side shall be the victor in any war.